Presidential historian Michael Beschloss (in photo) sees a valuable lesson in the problematic wars since World War II — the last time a president followed the constitutional instruction to go to Congress for a declaration of war. Without such a congressional declaration, he said Sunday on NBC’s "Meet the Press": "We often don’t have a full debate before the war begins. And the result is, I think, these wars are not fought as well as they would be if a president did what the Constitution says, which is go to Congress, have a big debate, let the public understand what this might mean, what it might cost them. And the result, I think, would be that wars are fought more effectively and the public would be more willing to be with a president over the long run."
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- LonnythePlumber on Jail consultants straining patience
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
24 Comments
That’s historically not very accurate, of course. In American history, with well over 200 times American forces have been employed in combat situations outside the U.S., there have been only five (yes, that’s 5) declarations of war.
Trivia, anyone? Can you name them?Declarations of war are by far the exception, not the rule.
NO, the problem is that these wars, then and now, have been limited engagements for political purposes, and are often untidy affairs. That was true before, as well, but we’ve forgotten that.
We tend to think WWII was the rule – clear goals, total victory at all costs, total mobilization, etc. NOPE, by far, it was the exception. The types of combats we are now seeing are the rule. Limited and fuzzy goals, inconclusive outcomes.
Bechloss’ commentary is historical shortsightedness and ignorance.
OK, GMC, I’ll give it a whirl:
1) War of 1812;2) Mexican-American War;3) Spanish-American War;4) World War I; and5) World War II.
As you know, the constitution gives Congress the “power to … declare war”. I’ve often pondered just what that means; obviously, the formal Declarations of War are rare.
Hmmm, a challenge, naming declared wars without looking at history books…let’s see if I pass the test. haha!
Revolutionary WarMexican WarSpanish-American WarWorld War IWorld War II
Did I pass teach?:(
Another story that didn’t make the papers in the US was that the Bulgarian paper “Novinite” reported that the US has leased two air bases in Bulgaria and one in Romania and flown in attack jets (F-15s, F-16s and A-10s). We then see reports that Abdullah Gul, foreign minister of Turkey, made a trip to the US this past week, ostensibly to prevent Nancy Pelosi from introducing a resolution in Congress that would condemn Turkey for the genocide of the Armenians during World War I. He was supposed to meet Cheney, Rice and Stephen Hadley.
My take is that the Armenian resolution was merely a ploy to get him to the US so the snake-oil salesmen could pressure him into allowing the overflight of Turkish airspace so that all those jets in Bulgaria and Romania could attack Iran from the north.
While our Congress fiddles and our US news organizations focus on stupid TV shows, the Bush White House and the crazies are preparing to attack Iran.
Beschloss has made a very good point.Far too many people in responsible positions have become sick and mentally twisted in maneuvering and manipulating their own ideology onto a society to suit their own and the minority agendas.Our founding fathers were very observant and knowledgeable to base the Constitution from more then four hundred years of European government politics.They knew what policies work and didn’t work for a free society to prosper as a nation.Given that the founding fathers had a more relax environment where they were not perplexed as much by the rat race style of life that we have facing us today, they had more time free to them to think things out in a more thorough fashion.So why would you want to question those who were better thinkers of everyday life and things then what we have today?
Oh boo, I missed the War of 1812, I missed one :(
To the takers – It’s:
1812, w/ Britain1848, w/ Mexico1898, w/ Spain1917, WWI1941, WWII
That’s it! VT, you win the booby prize. More important, I suspect you understand that the way we conducted war in the past wasn’t nearly as clean and neat as Beschloss thinks.
Interesting question as to just what a declaration of war is; for all intents and purposes, the AUMF before the Iraq war is one, though not titled as such. Note in may of those prior occasions, Congress wasn’t even asked.
Today the War Powers Act requires Congressional authorization. Though presidents (of both parties) have consistently maintained it is unconstitutional, it has also been complied with. Political expediancy prefers that to a constitutional confrontation where the outcome is uncertain.
GMC, thank you for my prize! Do I need to supply a SASE to receive it? :-)
Agree with you on the War Powers Act discussion in toto.
We did debate this war.. the only problem is when it started getting hard, all the politicians started to say they didn’t have all the fact.. they were lied to.. because their oversight of Inteligence agencies was enept like every senate committee.. and they don’t have the balls to say they didn’t do their own homework on their votes..
I agree, we DID debate this war. And there were plenty of us who were very very much against it.
That was, until Colin Powell made the case. I may not have trusted Bush, but I did trust Powell.
And it came with a warning- you had BETTER be right.
So far, there has been no real consequences for the wrongs of this war, the lies (and I don’t give a damn what you say, when you cherry pick the facts to support your case, that is a LIE).
And it is a war. This wasn’t some little back up mission, this was, IS our mess.
Such a shame that we forgot the lessons of Vietnam. We’ll have the same fate too.
I think it was Bin Laden who first said that it was going to be another Vietnam.
Umm, I think the United States declared war against certain Southern secessionist states in 1861 that formed their own Confederacy. A little war. Often forgotten.
So, Heartlander, are you trying to suggest that the Anerican Civil War is somehow analogous to the War on Iraq?
Pardon me, but I fail to see the connection.
The South attempted secede from the Union so that they could continue with the practice of slavery. The North prevented them from that course of action.
The Iraqis are involved in a Civil War for control of the country’s oil revenues – the United States is trying to play referee.
So, what is the connection.
The South seceded because the North was trying to prevent them from doing what was constitutional (expand slavery).There were times when the war was not going well and you people wanted to cut and run. You know, when the going gets tough, you people get going. It was Lincoln’s courage and pure will that kept the North going to reunite the country.
The United States didn’t declare war on the confederacy, because to do so would have given it credibility. As the Confederacy wasn’t a legimately recognized government it wasn’t necessary to declare war on it
As usual, Fleet Idiot, you are 100% full of shit. How can you stand yourself, knowing that you just make up shit and recite right wing talking points?
When I read your posts, my first thoughts are that I am very sorry that you were born so damned stupid.
Dingus is correct about the North not recognizing the South as another country. And, ws, your post makes no sense. I tell the truth in my post and this is you,”fleet, you are stupid and dumb. You are dumb and stupid”. Perhaps you could actually offer something of substance if you disagree with my take on the seccession.
Agreed, WS.
Somebody famous once said that not all CONservatives are stupid, but all stupid people are CONservative.
Fleettwood sure bears that one out, doesn’t he?
Fleet, disagreeing with you is something that most logical people do on a regular basis. You are flat out a waste of time. When you are proven wrong, you just begin with the inane lame attempts at humor.
So why bother?
For 99.999% of the world Fleet, you are nothing more than a misuse of oxegen.
Not all Cons are stupid. That I will give them and not much else. Despite the dumb blondes like Coulter and the radio hate mongers like Savage, some of them actually have brains. People like George Will and Novak. I don’t agree with them but they will make you defend your positions.
There are times I wish the north would have just let the south go even though I live here. The nation’s IQ would be about 100 points higher and there would be about 100 less Republicans in the Congress and Senate. Oh, and no Bush either.
Kev,I thought Bush’ roots are somewhere in New England.
The Bushs are from New England despite W’s fake Texas stuff but what I mean is that it is the south that most reliabily votes Republican- well outside Kansas anyway. So if the south was not part of the country in no way would the cons ever win.
ws and capn prove, once again, why they are the idiots.